tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115466450510206428..comments2015-03-30T23:34:27.453-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Harmony Without EmpathyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155037309333422722006-08-08T05:41:00.000-06:002006-08-08T05:41:00.000-06:00theloniousThere is a far amount of discussion amon...<B>thelonious</B><BR/><BR/>There is a far amount of discussion among moral theorists that describe morality in terms of rules of cooperation. For example, social contract theory attempts to understand morality in terms of the rules of cooperation that individuals would agree to.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, my point is that genetic empathy is not required for morality, and the same argument that shows the benefit of teaching cooperation also shows the benefit of teaching empathy, even if there is no empathy to start with.<BR/><BR/>Physically, the best theory of action (and the one that I assume true in my writing) states that our own desires DO take precidence over others as a matter of necessity. There is no way to avoid it.<BR/><BR/>When I act, my actions are motivated by states in my brain and only by the states in my brain. If it were even possible for somebody else's brain states to influence my actions then, to that degree, those actions would no longer be mine. They belong to the person whose brain states are in control.<BR/><BR/>Which means, if your desires are truly in conflict, then the game has already been lost. Violence will ensue. The only way to prevent these results is to promote desires that are not in conflict or that are overriden by desires that mitigate against the harms of conflict.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1154736497099061292006-08-04T18:08:00.000-06:002006-08-04T18:08:00.000-06:00It seems to me that you've missed the point here -...It seems to me that you've missed the point here - or answered the wrong question.<BR/><BR/> You conflate cooperation with morality, but they are not the same thing at all. I would tend to think that morality is (should be) defined in terms of sympathy with (or acknowledgement of) others. Cooperating when we both agree is neither moral nor immoral.<BR/><BR/> Morality enters the picture when our desires are in conflict. Morality is acknowledging that my own desires do not necessarily take precedence over yours. I would hesitate to use the term "sympathy" here because it connotes an emotional state and I don't think ethics is (should be) emotion-based. Essentially I would say that ethics is the acknowledgement that my own viewpoint (and hence my set of desires) is not privileged and deserves no more consideration than any other. That puts it fairly rationally (almost like physics) though in practice it is often worked out emotionally through sympathizing with others.<BR/><BR/> Of course this is an over-simplification - I'm not trying to offer a full-blown ethical theory here, just trying to make a point.thelonioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03320480124291748720noreply@blogger.com